February 26, 2021 – Kerr v. Baranow Distilled

“Peters does not suggest that the trial judge erred in his articulation of the law. The Supreme Court of Canada set out the law on unjust enrichment arising from a common law relationship in Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269. The court: (i) determines if there has been an unjust enrichment, by determining whether the defendant has been enriched and the claimant has suffered a corresponding deprivation; if so then (ii) there must be no reason in law or justice for the defendant to keep the benefits conferred by the claimant.

If an unjust enrichment has been established, the concept of joint family venture comes into play when considering remedy. The Kerr v. Baranow factors to be considered in determining whether a joint family venture exists are:

•   Mutual effort – did the parties pool their efforts and work towards a common goal?

•   Economic integration – how extensively were the parties’ finances integrated?

•   Actual intent – did the parties intend to have their lives economically intertwined?

•   Priority of the family – to what extent did the parties give priority to the family in their decision making?”

Peters v. Swayze, 2018 ONCA 189 (CanLII) at 7-8